[Bug 244370] Review Request: olpc-hardware-manager - OLPC hardware manager
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Jun 19 14:13:28 UTC 2007
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: olpc-hardware-manager - OLPC hardware manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244370
jeff at ocjtech.us changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From jeff at ocjtech.us 2007-06-19 10:13 EST -------
1 - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be
posted in the review.
W: olpc-hardware-manager non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/dbus-1/system.d/olpc-hardware-manager.conf
Can be ignored I think...
W: olpc-hardware-manager service-default-enabled /etc/init.d/olpc-hardware-manager
For the OLPC-2 branch this is fine, however if the package ever makes
it to a Fedora branch the service should not start by default.
W: olpc-hardware-manager no-reload-entry /etc/init.d/olpc-hardware-manager
Can be ignored...
2 - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
OK
3 - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in
the format %{name}.spec
OK
4 - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
OK
5 - MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible
license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the
legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
OK (LGPL)
6 - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license.
OK
7 - MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of
the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing
the text of the license(s) for the package must be included
in %doc.
OK
8 - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK
9 - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the
reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be
impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place
for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest ([WWW]
http://www.ioccc.org/).
OK
10 - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the
upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers
should use md5sum for this task.
OK (no upstream tarball, verified by checking out code from upstream repository,
see patch 157367)
11 - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one supported architecture.
OK (F-7/i386)
12 - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work
on an architecture, then those architectures should be
listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed
in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla,
describing the reason that the package does not
compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number
should then be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have
bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should
put this description in the comment until the package is
approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the
long explanation with the bug number. (Extras Only) The bug
should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following
bugs to simplify tracking such issues...
OK
13 - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires,
except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of
Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires
is optional. Apply common sense.
OK
14 - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.
OK
15 - MUST: If the package contains shared library files located in the
dynamic linker's default paths, that package must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple
subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also
have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. An
example of the correct syntax for this is...
OK
16 - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager
must state this fact in the request for review, along with
the rationalization for relocation of that specific
package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a
blocker.
OK
17 - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it
does not create a directory that it uses, then it should
require a package which does create that directory. The
exception to this are directories listed explicitly in the
Filesystem Hierarchy Standard ([WWW]
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html), as it is
safe to assume that those directories exist.
OK
18 - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the
%files listing.
OK
19 - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables
should be set with executable permissions, for
example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...)
line.
OK
20 - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm
-rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK
21 - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in
the macros section of Packaging Guidelines.
OK (assuming patch 157365 is applied)
22 - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This
is described in detail in the code vs. content section of
Packaging Guidelines.
OK
23 - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc
subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the
packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity)
OK
24 - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect
the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in
%doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
OK
25 - MUST: Header files or static libraries must be in a -devel
package.
OK
26 - MUST: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel
package.
OK
27 - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix
(e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so
(without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
OK
28 - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require
the base package using a fully versioned dependency:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
OK
29 - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these
should be removed in the spec.
OK
30 - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly
installed with desktop-file-install in the %install
section. This is described in detail in the desktop files
section of Packaging Guidelines. If you feel that your
packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you
must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
OK
31 - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by
other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first
package to be installed should own the files or directories
that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example,
that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or
man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own
a file or directory that another package owns, then please
present that at package review time.
OK
32 - MUST: Release tag must contain %{?dist}.
33 - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as
a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query
upstream to include it.
OK
34 - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec
file should contain translations for supported Non-English
languages, if available.
OK
35 - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
OK (F-7/i386)
36 - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on
all supported architectures.
Untested (no access to OLPC hardware)
37 - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of
running, for example.
Untested (no access to OLPC hardware)
38 - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be
sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement
to determine sanity.
REMINDER: Check for condrestart if a service is restarted
by scriptlets.
REMINDER: Verify that non-chkconfig/ldconfig commands have
"|| :".
OK (assuming patch 157366 is applied)
39 - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency.
OK
APPROVED, assuming last three patches posted are applied.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list